BACKGROUND: There is low uptake of chlamydia screening in general practices registered with the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP). Aims. To explore staff's attitudes and behaviour around chlamydia screening and how screening could be optimized in general practice. METHODS: A qualitative study with focus groups and interviews, in general practices in seven NCSP areas. Twenty-five focus groups and 12 interviews undertaken with a purposively selected diverse group of high and low chlamydia-screening practices in 2006-08. Data were collected and analysed using a framework analytical approach. RESULTS: Higher screening practices had more staff with greater belief in patient and population benefits of screening and, as screening was a subjective norm, it was part of every day practice. Many staff in the majority of other practices were uncomfortable raising chlamydia opportunistically and time pressures meant that any extra public health issues covered within a consultation were determined by Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) targets. All practices would value more training and feedback about their screening rates and results. Practices suggested that use of computer prompts, simplified request forms and more accessible kits could increase screening. CONCLUSION: Practice staff need more evidence of the value of opportunistic chlamydia screening in men and women; staff development to reduce the barriers to broaching sexual health; simpler request forms and easily accessible kits to increase their ability to offer it within the time pressures of general practice. Increased awareness of chlamydia could be attained through practice meetings, computer templates and reminders, targets and incentives or QOF points with feedback.
BACKGROUND: There is low uptake of chlamydia screening in general practices registered with the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP). Aims. To explore staff's attitudes and behaviour around chlamydia screening and how screening could be optimized in general practice. METHODS: A qualitative study with focus groups and interviews, in general practices in seven NCSP areas. Twenty-five focus groups and 12 interviews undertaken with a purposively selected diverse group of high and low chlamydia-screening practices in 2006-08. Data were collected and analysed using a framework analytical approach. RESULTS: Higher screening practices had more staff with greater belief in patient and population benefits of screening and, as screening was a subjective norm, it was part of every day practice. Many staff in the majority of other practices were uncomfortable raising chlamydia opportunistically and time pressures meant that any extra public health issues covered within a consultation were determined by Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) targets. All practices would value more training and feedback about their screening rates and results. Practices suggested that use of computer prompts, simplified request forms and more accessible kits could increase screening. CONCLUSION: Practice staff need more evidence of the value of opportunistic chlamydia screening in men and women; staff development to reduce the barriers to broaching sexual health; simpler request forms and easily accessible kits to increase their ability to offer it within the time pressures of general practice. Increased awareness of chlamydia could be attained through practice meetings, computer templates and reminders, targets and incentives or QOF points with feedback.
Authors: John M Saunders; Catherine H Mercer; Lorna J Sutcliffe; Graham J Hart; Jackie Cassell; Claudia S Estcourt Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2012-04-17 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Angela H Hogan; Rebecca S Howell-Jones; Elizabeth Pottinger; Louise M Wallace; Cliodna Am McNulty Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Cliodna A M McNulty; Angela H Hogan; Ellie J Ricketts; Louise Wallace; Isabel Oliver; Rona Campbell; Sebastian Kalwij; Elaine O'Connell; Andre Charlett Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Katy Town; Cliodna A M McNulty; Ellie J Ricketts; Thomas Hartney; Anthony Nardone; Kate A Folkard; Andre Charlett; J Kevin Dunbar Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Claudia S Estcourt; Lorna J Sutcliffe; Andrew Copas; Catherine H Mercer; Tracy E Roberts; Louise J Jackson; Merle Symonds; Laura Tickle; Pamela Muniina; Greta Rait; Anne M Johnson; Kazeem Aderogba; Sarah Creighton; Jackie A Cassell Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 3.519